Hi there -- while there's always more to be said on this topic, you may be interested in this older post from u/mikedash that covers the famine. His last paragraph provides a summary, but please do read the whole thing:

In summary, there is excellent evidence that the British could have done far more to alleviate the famine than they did, and that, even though the event occurred well before modern ideas of how to respond to such crises were formed, a good many people were critical of the extent of British aid at the time. There is also good evidence that a significant proportion of Protestant Irish landlords put their own economic interests ahead of those of their tenants and that a few influential policy-makers were willing to let the famine largely run its "natural" course for a combination of political, economic and ideological reasons. There is not, at least in my view, any evidence of an active conspiracy to materially worsen the conditions that the Irish suffered.

Also, this post from u/cenodoxus is also quite good and directly addresses the question of genocide.

Genocide, no. At least not under the common definition requiring intent. There are a number of issues to understand the wider context of Britain and Ireland at the time.

1. Munster and Connacht, due largely to less suitable land for cereals, became dependent on potatoes as a source of income and food.
2. Changes in landlord-tenant relations in the 19th century meant that rent was expected frequently. Traditionally these payments could have been as many as decades apart. Closer rent payments means that if you can’t earn enough money after a single bad season you could lose your house and farm.
3. The Poor Law Unions are set up in the 1830s. They’re an early attempt at decentralised welfare where boroughs give people board and a job at a workhouse so those in poverty can still be supported. 1830s is before sanitation is made a local government duty though, so expect a lot of disease.
4. Poor people in the countryside didn’t eat much meat. They survived on more vegetable-heavy diets. Animals like cattle were quite expensive, so their meat was typically well out of the hands of Connacht farmers and may have just been sold to England instead.
5. At this point free-market capitalism is relatively new as a concept, and Parliament is debating heaving between letting the markets sort out poor districts or using direct intervention. There’s also arguments made over Protectionism and its merits/demerits.

Merging that together, we can sum up some of the Great Famine as predominantly Connacht and Munster farmers losing their crops, and most lose their homes (set on fire to prevent illegal reoccupation). The lucky ones stay of the streets by getting board at the workhouses, but disease spreads when too many people apply. Local landlords try to invest in more workhouses so there’s a bigger safety net, but construction is too slow to satisfy demand.

Elsewhere Parliament debates on how to solve the issue. One side insists on letting the markets handle it, likely believing the available food would drop in value so everyone can eat. That doesn’t seem to happen to a noticeable extent, and cattle farmers continue to sell their cattle to English markets rather than allow it to be supplied to the destitute farmers in the west. As an alternative they consider more welfare, and help open up soup kitchens. They don’t expand, partly due to the Free Market wing‘s love of the Protestant Work Ethic. They make a compromise to hire the poor and hungry as a workforce and have them build roads and railway lines all over the place. It’s quite successful since by the 1850s Ireland has more track than England, and you can tell the level of desperation in the roads since many actually lead to nowhere - no one cared so long as it counted as a job.

That’s about all I can remember of Famine history from my Undergrad, but I can re-edit to provide sources if that’s required. Britain wasn’t intentionally trying to starve Ireland to death. But they certainly could have done better, and the selling of cattle is so controversial it overshadows any imports Ireland received.

Historians in Ireland are still divided over how much guilt to put on Britain, and these days it’s just the fringe hard- nationalist historians (and non-historians of similar ideals) who cling to the Genocide viewpoint. Revisionists have started to acknowledge it was just a bad time for the British and Irish economy to go through a Famine, though there’s understandably more attention to British failings than Irish ones.